IMPORTANT POINT
Forfeiture of peace bond – Scope and nature of Section 107 Cr.P.C. is preventive and not punitive – Magistrate cannot alter purpose of provisions from preventive to punitive by imposing heavy quantum of security/bond which a person might be unable to pay.

JUDGMENT

Dinesh Maheshwari, J.

Leave Granted.

2. Though a short question as regards forfeiture of the bond furnished by the appellant in terms of Section 107 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973¹[Hereinafter also referred to as ‘CrPC’ or ‘the Code’.] and the amount payable thereunder is involved in this matter but, having regard to its implications, we deem it appropriate to dilate on the relevant aspects in necessary details.

3. The present appeal is directed against the order dated 19.07.2022, as passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad²[Hereinafter also referred to as ‘the High Court’.] in a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India bearing No. 4882 of 2021. The appellant had preferred the said petition against the order dated 08.09.2021, as passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Muzaffarnagar³[Hereinafter also referred to as ‘the Revisional Court’.] in Criminal Revision No. 145 of 2021, whereby the Revisional Court had declined to interfere with the order dated 23.07.2021, as passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Budhana⁴[Hereinafter also referred to as ‘the Magistrate’.] in Case No. 2836 of 2021 in exercise of powers under Section 122 CrPC, forfeiting the bond in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-that had been furnished by the appellant in terms of Section 107 CrPC for keeping the peace.

4. The background aspects relevant for the question at hands could be noticed in brief as follows: -

4.1. In the wake of 3-tier Panchayat Elections, the Sub-Inspector, Police Station Bhaura Kalan, Muzaffarnagar made a report on 11.01.2021 to the said Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Budhana, District Muzaffarnagar that 26 named persons, including the appellant, were likely to commit crime and there was a strong possibility of them affecting the elections due to which, the peace or order in village Shikarpur could be disturbed. Hence, it was prayed that the named persons be required to furnish heavy bonds under Section 107/116 CrPC. It appears that during the course of inquiry on the said report, the learned Magistrate put the appellant to the condition of furnishing bond and accordingly, in terms of Section 116(3) CrPC, the appellant furnished a personal bond in the sum of Rs. 5,00,000/-(Rupees Five Lakhs). Thereafter, on 30.03.2021, the appellant was bound down in terms of Section 117 CrPC.

4.2. On 02.07.2021, a report was made by the Revenue Inspector/Lekhpal to Magistrate while allegating that the appellant had undertaken illegal construction on 0.0187 hectares out of 0.5310 hectares of the land of public pond in khasra No. 1285/2; and that the said illegal construction was stopped and the proceedings in that regard were pending in the Court of Tehsildar, Budhana. It was further alleged that in spite of instructions, the appellant installed linter on the said illegal construction in the midnight of 01.07.2021; and that on 02.07.2021, when the authorities reached the site to carry out inspection and to conduct inquiry, the appellant quarrelled with them using indecent language and created obstruction in the official work. It was, thus, submitted that the appellant had violated the terms of bond executed by him under Section 107 CrPC.

4.3. On the report so made, a notice under Section 122 CrPC was issued by the Magistrate to the appellant. On behalf of the appellant, appearance was put before the Magistrate and twice over, adjournments were sought for filing reply. However, neither any reply/objection was filed on behalf of the appellant nor anyone appeared on his behalf on 20.07.2021. Hence, the learned Magistrate proceeded ex parte against the appellant. Taking note of the background facts and the report as made against the appellant, the learned Magistrate recorded his satisfaction to forfeit the amount of Rs. 5,00,000/-of the bond furnished by the appellant and directed as under: -

“On the basis of the above analysis, it is prima facie proved that the respondent/accused Istakar son of Sarwar, resident of villag